Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Honestly, I find what they have shown for "Narrative" in 40k to sound a lot more interesting than Matched. I think, if you had your list invalidated by Matched Play, and choose not to play other formats, then it's only on you. Matched makes extra concessions in the name of "balance" and that to me is fine for a tournament, but when it infests (strong choice of words I know) every game, it becomes a bad thing.

IMHO: Narrative (by which I really mean "power levels") for casual play. Matched for tournaments and the like. I for one plan to push power levels more, to the point of maybe even turning down games if my opponent insists on fiddly points in the name of perceived balance. IMHO, just shut up and play the game and have fun, so what if someone has a little more or less?

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly, I find what they have shown for "Narrative" in 40k to sound a lot more interesting than Matched. I think, if you had your list invalidated by Matched Play, and choose not to play other formats, then it's only on you. Matched makes extra concessions in the name of "balance" and that to me is fine for a tournament, but when it infests (strong choice of words I know) every game, it becomes a bad thing.

IMHO: Narrative (by which I really mean "power levels") for casual play. Matched for tournaments and the like. I for one plan to push power levels more, to the point of maybe even turning down games if my opponent insists on fiddly points in the name of perceived balance. IMHO, just shut up and play the game and have fun, so what if someone has a little more or less?

Well, I mean I'd probably turn down most games built on power levels, so in an odd way we'd get along just fine. Because I'm not begrudging you games. I'm just not interested in the same thing as you are. The problem comes when some places will inevitably have a culture that prefers one or the other. If you come in there and want a game in the type that you prefer, you may not be getting any games at all.

I don't have any particular desire for points or power levels until I see how they all pan out. That being said it looks like the real difference between narrative and matched is game types/missions. I don't see any reason why you couldn't play matched missions building your lists using power levels or narrative missions with a hard points limit. Do what you want.

The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

Not picking on you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this mindset. It seems to stem from the desire to be able to min/max everything, or just outright "fear" that someone (usually your opponent, because in most cases I've seen, the person who is adamant about restrictions and matched play and "balance" would have zero problem if THEY were the one abusing the rules) can get an advantage.

Wayniac wrote:
The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

Not picking on you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this mindset.

It can be list building efficiency. You don't want 5 more rubric marines. You want 1 or 2 more and then to take those other points and spend them over here for x,y,z.. Squeezing those last few points into place to build a really efficient list can be enjoyable in and of itself and helps to build your personal strategy before you ever hit the table. Instead of the fine details of that strategy with points, power levels is a prebuilt sledgehammer approach. You buying everything in costco style bulk in predetermined prepackaged bundles. It's less home cooked and more off the shelf.

Wayniac wrote:
The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

Not picking on you, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this mindset. It seems to stem from the desire to be able to min/max everything, or just outright "fear" that someone (usually your opponent, because in most cases I've seen, the person who is adamant about restrictions and matched play and "balance" would have zero problem if THEY were the one abusing the rules) can get an advantage.

You clearly wouldn't get it. You mention it like balance is somehow the other side of the coin to fun. Like they are somehow antithesis to eachother. I think balanced games are more fun. They make me feel like I did something skillful when I win, and they make me feel like I had a good game rather than a frustratingly onesided one when I lose. If I win with "power levels" I feel like "well, I won because my power levels happened to favour this setup." and when I lose I feel like "well, doesn't really matter what I would have done differently. I lost because the game was set up for me to lose."

The more balance I feel there is, the more I enjoy the game, no matter if I'm winning or losing, because I like to match skills with people. I couldn't give less of a toss what happened on Blaxius IV during the Kroot - Protos war. The fluff does not inspire anything in me.

Fair points, to each their own as I said was more or less trying to glean why that mentality exists. While I prefer power levels (from what I've seen of course) I really would have no problem going down to Matched, in fact I sometimes lament the fact that you can't buy individual models in units in AOS.

Then, in turn, I could say that you clearly wouldn't "get it" why I tend to play for the complete opposite reasons you do. You're not any more "right" than I am, or the other poster.

 Elbows wrote:
Then, in turn, I could say that you clearly wouldn't "get it" why I tend to play for the complete opposite reasons you do. You're not any more "right" than I am, or the other poster.

That's exactly what I said.

 Purifier wrote:

... like... how?
.

Experience.knowledge. Understanding.

I mean, it stands to reason that if you play a game for long enough, you understand how it works. for example, you can probably look at a codex and instinctively know what's good and what's bad. You can 'eyeball' it. It also Stands to reason that if you play narrative games, and put some of your 'gaming exp's' into game-building, rather than just listbuilding-for-advantage, then this kind of thing becomes a lot more straight forward and intuitive than you imagine.

This is the done thing amongst legions of historical players, and for what is worth, we've been playing games like flames of war, infinity, and various historical this way for about four years. I actually couldn't tell you the points costs of a single thing in fow. And yet we've only ever had one game I would call 'unbalanced' and that was specifically because we chucked all my mates early war British against all of his early war Italian AND early war Germans, just so we could put it all on the board (let's just say it didn't end well for the British!). Every other time.
, we've managed to 'eyeball' it pretty well.

 Purifier wrote:

There's a reason I don't trust random people making up balance: they don't know sh*t.

Who says people like us are 'making it up' or 'don't know sh*t'. See above. Also of note is that 'Balanced' games can be just as prone to hard counters, whose only shield often is zealous players appealing to scripture and declaring 'well, it was in the rules'.

At the end of the day, I don't trust random people either, but that goes for official rules too. 'Official rules' are not necessarily a stamp of infallibility No company gets it right all the time, and I don't know any Wargame that doesn't have its share of flaws, issues and problematic balance issues.

The thing is, you don't do narrative with random people or strangers. This is the kind of play that excels with a tight knit group that understands each other. And like I said, with a bit of knowledge and experience, eyeballing these things gets easier and more intuitive

 Purifier wrote:

Things need to be balanced through playtesting and math. Not through "well I think it'll be pretty balanced if I have three times the amount of points, and you have a stronghold and defensive position."

And where do you think that playtesting starts?

Precisely at that very point that you dismiss.

And so what if it doesn't work out first time you reset. No different to fielding armies in balanced 'matched play' games either at the end of the day, like, for example warmachine. I enjoy had plenty times where I had my new caster, unit, solo or whatever and 'plugged it in' to a game where's it just didn't work. End result was a Few hours of banging my head against the wall, followed by returning to the drawing board and rebuilding my lists, or even hoping for a different march up. I've also had times where I one-turned my opponents whole army in matched play (and typically, such an event in a 'balanced game' is usually ascribed to excellent tactics, but the same event in an identical 'pointless' gsme is usually ascribed as proof that the whole thing is somehow broken and unfit for play).

In any case, you miss the point. Sometimes, playing three times the points of attackers (because that's how it works in the 'real' world and through history) versus a well dug in, fortified defender ends up being a bloody good game. Mightn't even have to be balanced to be fun. Ever hear of the doomed last stand? It can be very thematic. I've played those games too where there was no chance for the defender to 'win' any kind of abstract victory as understood by matched play (because hey, everything died), but where the point was to hold out as long as possible - and by God, it was gaming gold.

 Purifier wrote:

No. What you're saying is just straight up wrong. Throwing in a narrative is the opposite to achieving balance. It will always be inferior for balancing and is only there to allow you fun games with a rough balance.

Missing the point from the word go. 'Throwing in a narrative' is not how you do narrative. Chucking stuff onto the board without a plan is not how you do narrative. Nor is the idea of game-building and cooperation the opposite of achieving balance. It's just a way of playing that is different to matched play where's you each bring stuff independent of the other.

I'd also argue it is not necessarily inferior for balancing. The balance in matched play can be just as rough or unbalanced, for example. And we all have examples for that.

This is just another place on this forum where people take the standard "bash GW" stance without even thinking about power versus points.

Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.

A lot of people I play with don't even care so much about the points. Not ever game has to be about winning and losing. if you don't understand that, you won't understand power.

 Purifier wrote:
... like... how?
There's a reason I don't trust random people making up balance: they don't know sh*t.
Things need to be balanced through playtesting and math. Not through "well I think it'll be pretty balanced if I have three times the amount of points, and you have a stronghold and defensive position."

No. What you're saying is just straight up wrong. Throwing in a narrative is the opposite to achieving balance. It will always be inferior for balancing and is only there to allow you fun games with a rough balance.

Points are inheritently flawed because they try to account for every variable. Which is impossible. Value of unit will change depending on what other units you have, whom you face, what armies he has, scenario, terrain. Something as simple as building in center of table alters value of each unit.

Only way you can archieve balance is remove variables. The more variables(like ability for players to set their own terrain, different scenarios per game or players changing army composition) the less balanced the game is.

With narrative you instead have _absolute_ control. You can actually account for EVERYTHING down to the last inch of a terrain placement.

Therefore while narrative game is lot harder to set up(unlike matched. X points, list, roll on) it's the only way you can actually get truly balanced end result. Hell of an effort though.

If you've ever read a thread on this forum you know that people here can't balance anything. Everyone thinks their army is the weakest and everyone else's is the strongest.

No, I wouldn't trust a single point either of you two are trying to make.

 Purifier wrote:
If you've ever read a thread on this forum you know that people here can't balance anything. Everyone thinks their army is the weakest and everyone else's is the strongest.

Uh huh, and that proves what, exactly? A bunch of enthusiastic, if sometimes misguided, and often competitive-focused amateurs (often out for their own gain?) make mistakes and don't do a good job? Let's also ask how experienced said people are at wargames. I mean. I don't put much stock in the 40k proposed rules section either, but I don't use it as a metric to judge the creativity of the community as a whole, or my friends ability to eyeball a game. What you're saying g doesn't 'prove' as much as you think.

let's also point out this is dakkadakka, and it tends to self-select for the more hardcore elements of the hobby, often with an over-selected focus on the competitive scene, rather than the narrative/garage scene. These two scenes don't necessarily mix Which is fair enough. And let's lot mistake the volume for numbers.

I know a lot of home brewers and narrative gamers and I'm the only one that posts online. Most people that are in to that kind of thing don't really post here. Or online. At all. Like I said, a lot of historical players, and especially older players tend to play this way, since this is how, historically. Wargames were generally organised. Posting online tends to select a particular subset of gamers, and won't necessarily give a new accurate picture of things, and that includes narrative play. So with respect, don't put too much stock into what you've seen here. The reality on the ground is often quite different and exciting

That said, there are some posters that do post here and have a good grasp of narrative gaming. if you want to get some good pointers and insight on narrative play, you could do worse than talking to the likes of auticus, fenris kitsune or especially mongoose Matt - that guy is gold. Well worth hearing what they're have to say about things.

 Purifier wrote:


No, I wouldn't trust a single point either of you two are trying to make.

I was always taught never to close my mind to different ideas, and to always keep an open mind and try new things.

Deadnight wrote:


I was always taught never to close my mind to different ideas, and to always keep an open mind and try new things.

I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea. Get off your high horse. You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else, like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.

You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.

The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.

 Marmatag wrote:


Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.

You don't have any lists already made? Even with no list on hand it shouldn't even take you 30 minutes to build a list, let alone an entire hour lol.

 Luciferian wrote:
The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.

Thanks, that's a good paraphrasing of what I've been trying to argue.

I think the point is in narrative, you don't need "balance" to have a fun game. If your opponent has more models than you, work out a situation that gives you a fighting chance (such as a breakthrough, or similar). Often though, the general attitude for the narrative/casual side is "Who cares, let's play" and it's not a big deal if your opponent has 20 more points than you or fields an extra squad, while to the competitive minded person it's "cheating" and a cardinal sin because it's not "even".

Again, to each their own, but I find my own experience lends itself a lot more to a much more laid back and casual environment, whether using points or not. So you're at 2,003 points instead of 2,000, so what? Hey, you have a cool summon that technically would require points but you don't have them, go ahead, just don't be a jerk and abuse it every turn because you can. You want to field all elites and there is no chart to let you do it? Go ahead, it sounds like you have a cool idea.

That's the narrative mindset: Less focus on "everything as equal as possible" and more on "That's a cool idea, let's see how it turns out" with the implied "Don't be a jerk" rule thrown in.

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.

You don't have any lists already made? Even with no list on hand it shouldn't even take you 30 minutes to build a list, let alone an entire hour lol.

For an ITC game at 1850 yes i'll come prepared with my list already made, and printed out, built in battlescribe or HQB.

For random pick up games it's more of a negotiation to try and create a fair game. It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power." Much easier than thinking through all of the customization options, and then trying to justify something like, "nothing more than 200 points." Because you can still end up with some bare-bones stuff that's fairly strong and under 200 points.

 Marmatag wrote:


For random pick up games it's more of a negotiation to try and create a fair game. It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power." Much easier than thinking through all of the customization options, and then trying to justify something like, "nothing more than 200 points." Because you can still end up with some bare-bones stuff that's fairly strong and under 200 points.

Just so happens that they've assigned everything a general power level for exactly this type of purpose.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


For random pick up games it's more of a negotiation to try and create a fair game. It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power." Much easier than thinking through all of the customization options, and then trying to justify something like, "nothing more than 200 points." Because you can still end up with some bare-bones stuff that's fairly strong and under 200 points.

Just so happens that they've assigned everything a general power level for exactly this type of purpose.

that's my point

Purifier wrote:

I was taught that some things, like sticking your hand in the toilet and eating the contents found there, don't need to be tried to know it's a bad idea.

Cute. Here's the thing about anecdotes - anything can be one. Like try a holiday to a foreign country. Try a different show on tv. Try a sport. Different hobby. Play a game a different way...

Purifier wrote:
Get off your high horse.

No high horse here bud and I really my don't appreciate the condescension and 'high horse' comment here. Maybe it's Internet and tone, but for the record I'm not trying to be a jerk to you and I sîncerely hope it's the same from the other end here...

like I've said. It's Just a different perspective. I play narrative and I play matched play. It's not an abstract concept to me. I appreciate the value in both. I've seen both work, and I've seen both fall apart, so to me it's the implementation that matters more. Both scratch different itches at the end of the day, which is why I try and encourage both..

Purifier wrote:
You're saying that you know how to balance better than anyone else,

Go ahead. Quote me saying that. Or else take that back and stop putting words in my mouth and mischaracterising my arguments.

I've said we've played narrative games for four years and have had immense amounts of fun from them, and only once have we ever played out something that was truly 'broken' and there was literally from chucking everything 'early war' onto the board.

Purifier wrote:
like the highly competitive gamers with a lot of background in hosting huge events that GW are now assembling. You do you. But doesn't convince me one bit.

Uh huh, and what exactly does this show? Other people can organise events? Well done To them. No, seriously - well done to them. I've put together tournaments in the past. I know how much organisation and work needs to go into those thing s and I don't envy the guys one bit, but again, as has been pointed out before, organising things for 'matched play' and pugs/tournaments is different to narrative play. What works to organise those large events isn't what work said to organise or approach a narrative game. And before you try to strawman me again, let me be clear - I play matched play. I enjoy pick up gsmes and I enjoy tournaments (used to play WMH to a decently high level too - even scalped a former U.K. Masters winner... with mk2 strakhov, of all casters!)immensely. I also value and enjoy narrative play. I really don't have favourites here.

Purifier wrote:
But doesn't convince me one bit.

*shrug* that's a shame - it really is. I'm genuinely not trying to be cheeky or anything purifier, and I really don't appreciate your high horse comments. Myself and my mates have played various wargames this way for about four years now, and we've had a blast all this time. Maybe that doesn't convince you, but it doesn't stop me, or us, or any of the other narrative gamers out there doing the same thing from having fun doing it. Maybe it's something that has to be seen first hand rather than typed up, because a lot of it tends to be rather nebulousness and free-form rather than 'hard coded' in structure... for what it's worth, I'm sure you'd probably enjoy a game or two with our group.

Like I said, I recommended some people who are far more eloquent than I am at this sort of thing. Speak to them? Mongoosematt especially Or don't. Up to you really. But i think it's a shame that you aren't even giving it a chance-there is a lot of value from also taking a different approach. For what it's worth, it's done nothing but expand my appreciation for table top gaming. But hey, your choice in the end.

Purifier wrote:
You say points are flawed, so instead you want to use... other points. Because they're better. Ok. Whatever. Your arguments are bloody weird and not worth my time.

Quote me saying they're 'better' please. All I've ever said is it's a different way to approach wargames and it's an approach with merit and value, and it's one that I have had a lot of enjoyment out of. That's 'bloody weird'? Ok then...

Regarding points, I will say this: I like points, for what they are and within the right contexts, theyre perfectly fine. However points on their own are not the answer. Points are a tool. When used right, they are a very effective tool, but they are not the only one (you can't build a house with only a hammer!) Points can only go so far, and can only carry so much weight. Points work within a system where all the other variables are reduced - for example, a unit might be worth its points in one scenario, and overcosted for another (say, the ability to ignore terrain on a terrain heavy board, versus a 'naked' board - solution being to define the amount of terrain, and thereby reduce the variable). Perfectly fine. But raising and lowering the points costs of things isn't the only lever to pull either. Warmachine, for example isn't balanced because the points costs are right (it's points costs are generally pretty robust though). There are enough hard counters and 'silver bullets' in that game that some 75point lists are not the the equal of other 75point lists (and you won't find man you WMH players who will dispute that), but this is largely mitigated by other factors like multiple lists in tournaments, multiple win conditions (scenario. Assassination etc). So when I talk about other things being needed for balance, that's the kind of thing I am talking about.

Luciferian wrote:The idea that people should instinctively know the relative value of each model and its options, and that they should be expected to spontaneously and efficiently organize balanced games based purely on good will and their subjective experience of the game, is frankly ludicrous.

I hope you are not suggesting that's people should organise games based on something like nastiness and spite then instead of good will towards their fellows and peers in their community? Personally I always thought it was better to play against like minded fellows, and friends and people whose company I enjoyed but hey, that's probably 'bloody weird', right?

You're right - I don't expect anyone to 'instinctively know the relative value' of things. I've never even said such a thing. I've always said it's an approach that takes a bit of time, and it requires knowledge and experience, but for what it's worth it's an approach that I have personally found great enjoyment from, hence why I am here trying to encourage it.

For what it's worth, I don't see it as 'frankly ludicrous' to 'game-build' with my friends and have a go at homebrewed and often assymetric games. If it sounds interesting, I'll consider it. I can meet you half way, I'll make an attempt to accommodate. At the very least, have a chat and see if we are on the same page. You are my opponent, i regard you as an equal, I owe you that at least. If everyone has a subjective view on things, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing either - I just see it as an opportunity for more vairiety.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
External balance is one thing, internal balance another. It's not "codex A > codex B" as a whole, so much as a certain subset of units/formations/combos within a codex (or collection thereof) that makes the army that much deadlier. I don't even mean in a "if Eldar are OP then how come Footdar doesn't win" sort of way, so much as there's actually relatively little variance within individual power builds for a given codex.

If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Eldar, then how come there was no description about how D-weapons work in the Eldar Faction Focus? We know that Mortal Wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves due to the article about the Psychic Phase. How come there was no discussion about the trouble units besides Scatbikes in the same article that "Mandiblasters now do Mortal Wounds"?
Why not talk about the army design issues that stem from half the army being stuck in that design phase of "do only one thing", the other half being "(un)reasonably do everything". Why not talk about the fact Eldar armies almost always used Forgeworld to plug holes in their army? For example, I seriously doubt a pure Eldar force would have done as well in many of these events were it not for Hornets with cheap Pulse Lasers, the Skatach Wraithknight providing cover-busting crowd control, or the Warp Hunter providing unparalleled hard target elimination.

If Games Workshop was as keen on fixing Marines, why simplify Heavy Weapons to be a flat -1 to-hit on the move? The Skyhammer may be gone, but this rule change means that formation won't be needed anymore. GW has had two weapons articles and Q&As to clear up whether Grav will still rule over everything else, but they haven't given any hint that such weapons will be nerfed, and a cap on which units can start on board won't actually stop people from drop-podding Grav-devs when the main penalty is hitting on 4+ instead of 3+, and you no longer have to take an Assault Marine tax. Add additional restrictions to reserves and it will be harder to actually reserve your own guys to protect against said alphastrike. Maybe Grav is prohibitively expensive, maybe it isn't but based on initial speculation it doesn't look as promising.

If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Daemons, the first thing they could have focused on was "we noticed every Daemon player uses the Grimoire of True Names" or some other variant of "because the Daemon Army generally doesn't shoot, fight, etc, they won by stacking numerous defensive buffs, stealing objectives and not dying." Turning Tzeentch saves back to 4++ instead of 5++ & reroll all 1s is simpler in the long run and worked fine enough for the 4th ed list (that list had its own issues but that's another story), but focusing on Summoning misses the bigger picture when it's actually debatable based on numerous individual battle reports whether it was summoning that won games (as opposed to Masque movelocking Deathstars, Fateweaver granting really important re-rolls, individual Daemon units just refusing to die, or even the odd "honest mistake" like forgetting that a Soulgrinder does not have It Will Not Die, unlike a Defiler).

Maybe it's the fact the development was relatively sudden and there wasn't an open beta ("templates: yay or nay", etc), but it's little things like that which make my have my doubts. I am ready to eat my words if in fact things do end up being more playable in the long run, if point costs go back to 3rd ed values for non-infantry units, etc, but most things that have been teased at aren't giving me that much confidence.

As I see it it's finally a real new edition, and lots of rules are changing, hence it doesn't make as much sense to list changes without giving a long explanation to context. GW then chose two enthusiasts and playtesters from the competitive community to serve the teasers for us.

I would have preferred a more in debt teaser, and/or would have liked to hear the new direction which the factions are heading. As is I can only guess to why eldar are not bend in one way or another, the faction preview didn't tell me much. In particular it didn't tell what has been done about the scatterbikes and other workhorses. Had they ran scatterbikes with BS4+ and -1 to hit from moving, with scatterlasers only wounding Infantry on 3+, whilst shots bounced off dreadnoughts with 3+ saves and 8 wounds? Or was the cost increased to a level where things made sense... or where competitive list just eyeballed and thought that'll do it for todays testing, we sure had fun with wyches vs striking scorpions.

For the orks, of which I have the least of expectations, now it even seems as if the trukk assault is stopped... For the ork teaser I just want to hear how they are ok. Maybe morkanauts KFFs and painboyz bring aura protection for the horde (5++ and FnP5+), maybe shooting is heavily increased. I don't need to know they roll 80 dice with WS3+ at S4 in melee, if I somehow manage to get there.

I cannot tell you why GW did as they did, but this is the form of the teasers. All will soon be revealed.

GW said 8th will be more focused on the competitive game, and when it all arrives there will be plenty of gaming done, and the game will be judged a success in the competitive area or a failure. Personally a failure from GW will remove my focus to elsewhere, maybe CMON, X-wing or AoS. It will partly depend on which active communities are around. I can see playing several different systems are making my head spin (boy, did I mess up activations last time we played Warmachine), and I might as well narrow the focus down.

 Marmatag wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:


Adding up all of the weapons and options associated with a unit before your game can be really tiresome. It shouldn't take 1 hour to get set up for a game.

You don't have any lists already made? Even with no list on hand it shouldn't even take you 30 minutes to build a list, let alone an entire hour lol.

It would be nice if each unit had a power level assigned to it. "Nothing over 100 power."

They already do, they are called points, and they show how strong something is. Want an anti tank gun on that squad? it costs extra points, showing the value of it.

Good tight rules benefit everyone not just the competitive players there's no such thing as too balanced.

Nothing puts me off more than an unbalanced fight if its steamroller of a game its not enjoyable even if I'm the winner I get zero satisfaction.

If both sides don't have a roughly equal chance to win I'm not going to play.

MagicJuggler, just read your list. In general, I would guess that 2/3 of your list is going to benefit from the new edition.

I know the loss of summoning free units is a drag, but let's be real there shouldn't be any free models/units. Now instead for a 2000 point game, you can bring a 1500 list with 4 sides of daemons 500 a piece and choose/summon exactly what you need. The mounts have been here for awhile so i doubt they are going anywhere, and the crusader/boon stuff will get replaced with something else.

I wouldn't read too much into the faction focus articles. They are intentionally leaving out a lot of details, so let's save our final judgement until we get a final book in our hands. Hey if you really don't like it at that point you can always stick to 7th vs playing narrative. =P

Deadnight wrote:


I hope you are not suggesting that's people should organise games based on something like nastiness and spite then instead of good will towards their fellows and peers in their community?

Of course not. I'm just not the kind of person to put much stock in good intentions - in fact the more that someone appears to rely on the quality of their intentions as a justification or means for what they hope to accomplish, the less I'm able to trust the quality of their end results.

I'm not trying to argue against narrative style play or play without points at all. If you have a group of friends who enjoy experimenting with different scenarios, then that does sound like fun and I hope you guys have a great time.

However, there definitely IS a place for matched play as well, even amongst friends.

TremendousZ wrote:
MagicJuggler, just read your list. In general, I would guess that 2/3 of your list is going to benefit from the new edition.

I know the loss of summoning free units is a drag, but let's be real there shouldn't be any free models/units. Now instead for a 2000 point game, you can bring a 1500 list with 4 sides of daemons 500 a piece and choose/summon exactly what you need. The mounts have been here for awhile so i doubt they are going anywhere, and the crusader/boon stuff will get replaced with something else.

I wouldn't read too much into the faction focus articles. They are intentionally leaving out a lot of details, so let's save our final judgement until we get a final book in our hands. Hey if you really don't like it at that point you can always stick to 7th vs playing narrative. =P

The list I'm using has been a spoiler when I've had the chance to run it, partially because it's unexpected and partially because it's so unassuming for so many little interlocking components.

Where exactly does one cut 500 points from this list though? Or even 160 points as may be the case. Sure, I could go the easy route and take out the Helbrutes in exchange for running more MSU Hounds...but if I was doing that, why was I summoning in the first place?

What about Termicide? It's easy to predict that combi-weapons will go up in price, as heavy weapons (the multimelta) are going up in cost, and combis will be able to fire over multiple rounds. The only problem being that Termicide works partially because the combi-weapons are so cheap (5 points a pop), while the units have a relatively low threat profile afterwards.

How does Obsec work (or standard scenarios for matched play)? You might notice that almost the entire list has it. (The Lord and Sorcerer grant it and Crusader to the Fearless Cultists).

Boons aren't exactly a thing to replace lightly too; they were an annoyance prior to Traitor's Hate but being able to "roll 2, pick one or both" gives them a surprising deal of traction. I've had games where I'm basically running a discount Smashfucker and numerous mini-champions. The Scrolls I would be OK with just making you a standard Psyker but I'm able to roll with the random powers too. There's a reason for all the little units to run together in a mass like this. Everything is expendable, everything can threaten you in melee, almost everything can steal an objective from you, and I have a comprehensive playbook versus most foes, from Subterranean ambushes to Jetbikes+Void Shields.

Wayniac wrote:
The question, in all honesty, is WHY? Why are you so caught up in "must pay for every little thing" etc? I struggle to understand this in AOS as well. What does it matter? Is fun tied that much to having everything be as close as possible, instead of giving leeway to have a good time? I mean, I really don't get the fear of any sort of perceived imbalance as some awful thing, since most of the time they never happen anyways are are used as boogeymen for "But what if?" scenarios to discredit other forms of play.

Because 99.999999% of the time list-building choices in a "take whatever you want" system are made for power level reasons, not to "have a good time". People don't take mixed squads with a flamer, a sniper rifle, and a power fist, they always take the most powerful option because there's no reason to do anything else when it all costs the same. But let's reverse the question: why is it so important to remove balance? Why are you incapable of having the same amount of fun in a well-balanced game? Does your "fun" depend on exploiting balance problems to take a more powerful list, or are you just one of the "casual at all costs" players who take pride in how bad their game is for competitive play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I think the point is in narrative, you don't need "balance" to have a fun game. If your opponent has more models than you, work out a situation that gives you a fighting chance (such as a breakthrough, or similar). Often though, the general attitude for the narrative/casual side is "Who cares, let's play" and it's not a big deal if your opponent has 20 more points than you or fields an extra squad, while to the competitive minded person it's "cheating" and a cardinal sin because it's not "even".

Why does this argument always focus on being able to take a few extra points and how it's great sportsmanship/casual gaming/whatever to allow it, and completely ignore the option to remove those extra points from your army? If that extra 20 points isn't a big deal then just remove 20 points of stuff from your list. Playing a "casual" game with less importance given to points only benefits you if you feel compelled to exploit the lack of strict rules to bring a more powerful list, if you're willing to play fair and genuinely don't consider the extra points a big deal then the "casual" game offers you nothing that you can't get from a competitive game with strict points.

That's the narrative mindset: Less focus on "everything as equal as possible" and more on "That's a cool idea, let's see how it turns out" with the implied "Don't be a jerk" rule thrown in.

That's nice in theory, but as these threads demonstrate everyone has their own individual idea of what "being a jerk" means in terms of power level. Why waste time negotiating what power level is appropriate when you can just play a game with equal points and let the rules handle the balancing?